(CN) - A en banc panel of the Ninth Circuit, Friday reversed a lower court decision declining to reconsider a case under an updated anti-trafficking law in a case brought by several rural Cambodian villagers forced to work in the Thai seafood industry.
The 11-judge panel reversed a 2023 ruling by U.S. District Judge John F. Walter, who had denied villagers' requests for relief from his 2017 summary judgment finding no evidence that seafood distributor Rubicon Resources knowingly participated in or benefited from human trafficking.
The plaintiffs, seven Cambodian villagers forced to work in Thailand's seafood industry, claim in a 2016 federal lawsuit that multiple U.S. and Thai companies subjected them to forced labor in violation of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, or TVPA.
The workers said their bosses seized their passports and paid substandard wages for grueling work aboard fishing boats and in seafood factories, processing shrimp and other goods for U.S. buyers, including retail giant Walmart.
The plaintiffs said attempted escapes failed and pleas to authorities went unanswered, saying that Thai companies Phatthana Seafood and S.S. Frozen Food orchestrated a "debt bondage" scheme.
The Thai companies and their U.S. partners, Rubicon Resources and Wales & Co. Universe, moved to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing U.S. courts lacked jurisdiction because the alleged actions occurred overseas. U.S. District Judge John F. Walter agreed, granting summary judgment to the defendants in 2017.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the ruling in 2022 and denied a rehearing en banc. In 2023, the plaintiffs sought relief from the judgment after President Joe Biden signed the Abolish Trafficking Reauthorization Act of 2022 into law, which clarified that defendants may be civilly liable for attempting to benefit from human trafficking, even if unsuccessful.
Walter denied the request, finding the updated anti-trafficking law did not apply retroactively.
Writing for the majority, U.S. Circuit Judge Susan P. Graber, a Bill Clinton appointee, said Congress intended the ATRA to apply retroactively and that the lower court "legally erred" in concluding the law did not cover pre-enactment conduct.
"Congress made its intent clear by clarifying the meaning of an ambiguous statute, by labeling the amendment 'technical and clarifying,' and by passing its clarification soon after we misinterpreted the statute's meaning. These indicia are similar to those that we have found sufficient in the past to warrant retroactive application of a law," she said in the 63-page opinion.
Graber also said the lower court made multiple errors in denying the plaintiffs' motion for relief from judgment, concluding that Walter relied on an "erroneous definition" of "participate" when he found insufficient evidence that Rubicon participated in human trafficking.
"One can participate in a venture without operating or managing it," she wrote.
Graber added that the lower court ignored a prior Ninth Circuit finding that Rubicon knew of Phatthana's human trafficking by at least February 2012. She said Rubicon's efforts to sell products to Walmart after that date showed it attempted to benefit despite that knowledge.
"A reasonable jury could infer that Rubicon should have known about the conditions at the factories as early as October 2011, when Walmart refused to purchase shrimp because it was concerned about the conditions at the factory," she said.
U.S. Chief Circuit Judge Mary H. Murguia, a Barack Obama appointee, joined Graber in the majority along with U.S. Circuit Judges Ronald M. Gould, Jennifer Sung, Salvador Mendoza, Jr. and Ana de Alba, all Joe Biden appointees.
U.S. Circuit Judge Consuelo M. Callahan, a George W. Bush appointee, dissented, joined by U.S. Circuit Judges Bridget S. Bade, a Donald Trump appointee, and Anthony D. Johnstone, a Joe Biden appointee. U.S. Circuit Judges Milan D. Smith, Jr., a George W. Bush appointee, and Daniel A. Bress, a Donald Trump appointee, dissented in part.
Source: Courthouse News Service
